Home Group Limited (202609605)

Decision
Case ID	202609605
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	09 October 2026

Background

The resident reported damp and mould within the property over several years. The resident said the issues affected his enjoyment of the home. He also said the landlord had not adequately addressed his reports or completed flooring repairs. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities including mental health issues and mobility impairment.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and flooring repairs.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and flooring repairs.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to progress works identified after its June 2024 damp and mould inspection. This resulted in a delay of about 5 months before it took further action. It later completed extensive damp repairs and replaced the kitchen flooring. However, it did not evidence appropriate triage of later damp reports under Awaab’s Law. It also did not show that it completed the further damp works identified in May 2026. The landlord’s compensation did not fully recognise the impact of these failures.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not always in line with its complaints policy. It failed to progress the resident’s initial escalation request and provided incorrect information about the complaints process. However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised and offered compensation which appropriately recognised the impact on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 November 2026
2	Completing The Works Order Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must contact the resident and confirm whether the damp-related works identified following the inspection of 29 May 2026 were completed. If the works remain outstanding, the landlord must provide the resident and us with a written action plan. The action plan must include: any outstanding damp and mould issues identified at the property; any inspections or further investigations required; details of all remedial works required; target dates for completion; and the landlord’s nominated point of contact. The landlord must complete the identified works by the completion date provided to the resident.	No later than 06 November 2026
3	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated flooring repairs. This includes an additional payment of £240. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 November 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £185 it offered for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this offer.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 November 2025	The resident complained about delays in addressing damp and mould, failure to log a complaint and poor communication. He said the damp and mould was affecting his health. He wanted the landlord to complete the repairs, an explanation for the delays and clarification of the complaints process.
17 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In its response, it acknowledged that works identified following a June 2024 inspection had not been raised. It also accepted that damp and mould works were completed outside its target timescale. The landlord identified record keeping failures relating to an earlier complaint. It offered £185 compensation.
30 April 2026	The resident requested escalation of his complaint.
5 June 2026	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In its response it acknowledged that the kitchen flooring replacement had not been monitored following completion of the damp and mould works. It also recognised that complaint requests and an escalation request had not been actioned. Additionally, it found that incorrect information had been provided by customer service advisers. It also referred to a further damp inspection carried out on 29 May 2026, which identified a damp patch in the hallway and resulted in additional repairs being raised. The landlord offered a further £360 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. He said damp-related issues remained ongoing.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould and flooring repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported damp and mould on 31 May 2024. The landlord’s policy required it to investigate the cause. It raised an inspection and arranged a mould wash. It completed these on 14 and 18 June 2024 respectively. This was a reasonable initial response.
The inspection record said additional further works were required. It also said the maintenance surveyor would raise them. The landlord’s procedure required it to act on surveyor recommendations in a timely manner. However, there is no evidence that it raised the follow-on works. This was not in line with its procedure.
The resident reported damp-related concerns again on 26 November 2024. This was about 5 months after the earlier inspection. The landlord later accepted that it had identified works but had not progressed them. The resident therefore had to report the issue again before the landlord took further action. We consider this delay unreasonable.
The landlord then inspected the property and found faults with the bathroom fan and whole-house ventilation system. It arranged repairs. An electrician repaired the ventilation system in January 2025. The landlord completed further fan repairs later that month. It carried out another inspection in February 2025. We are satisfied that it took reasonable action during this period.
In August 2025 the resident told the landlord that his kitchen flooring was lifting. The landlord initially suspected a leak from the washing machine. It arranged replacement of the appliance at no cost to the resident. This was a reasonable response based on the information available at the time.
In September 2025 the resident reported damp and mould again through the landlord’s customer service centre. The landlord opened a damp and mould case on 3 September 2025. It inspected the property on 5 September 2025. Its policy required it to investigate potential damp and mould hazards within 10 working days. It therefore responded within its policy timescale.
The surveyor found high moisture readings behind the washing machine. It found that moisture was entering through the rear wall. The external ground level was above the damp-proof course. The surveyor recommended tanking, replacement plasterboard and replastering. The landlord acted reasonably by identifying the cause and required works.
The landlord raised the works with a target date of 31 October 2025. It completed them between 27 November and 1 December 2025. This was about one month outside its target. The landlord said it needed a damp and mould risk assessment and surveyor visits before confirming the required works. However, we have not seen the risk assessment. The surveyor had identified the cause and required works by 5 September 2025. The landlord has not shown why the works remained outstanding until December 2025. This was not in line with its repair timescale.
Awaab’s Law came into force on 27 October 2025, introducing several obligations for landlords under tenancy agreements. Landlords must:
1. Triage and assess any reported matter that is, or may be, a significant or emergency hazard, determine whether investigation is required, and record the triage outcomes.
2. Start investigations within 24 hours for emergency hazards or within 10 working days for significant hazards.
3. Make the property safe where an investigation confirms an emergency or significant hazard. For emergency hazards, this must be done within 24 hours of the report or investigation, and within 5 working days of the investigation concluding.
4. Provide suitable alternative accommodation if make-safe works cannot be completed within the required timescales.
5. Maintain clear records of all decisions and actions throughout the process.
On 29 December 2025 the resident reported water dripping into the kitchen cupboard and causing mould. We have not seen evidence showing how the landlord triaged this report against Awaab’s Law. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord considered whether the reported conditions presented a potential significant hazard. This was a failing.
The landlord recorded that the back of the cupboard was very wet. It raised a sealant repair and completed it on 5 January 2026. The landlord therefore acted promptly to repair the reported issue.
On 29 April 2026 the resident reported damp and mould on the hallway wall. The landlord recorded that he had tried to treat the problem, but it remained. It also knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities. Awaab’s Law required the landlord to consider relevant vulnerabilities when assessing the potential impact of a hazard. The landlord was expected to do this as part of its initial assessment and triage. It again failed to do so.
The landlord raised an inspection with a target date of 13 May 2026. It did not inspect until 29 May 2026. This was a failure.
Following the inspection, the landlord assessed the findings against Awaab’s Law. The surveyor found damp but no mould and diagnosed slight rising damp. The landlord decided that the condition did not meet the threshold under Awaab’s Law. We have not seen evidence that calls this assessment into question.
The surveyor recommended works to address the rising damp. These included removing plaster, injecting a damp-proof course and replastering. The landlord raised these works with a target date of 29 June 2026. The landlord continued trying to complete the hallway works after its stage 2 response. We have seen that some appointments did not proceed because of access issues. the landlord re-raised the repairs and involved an Estate Liaison Officer. These were reasonable steps. We have made an order to the landlord to take action in relation to the damp and mould, if it has not done so already.
However, the records show that specialist damp works remained necessary after the target date. The evidence does not show that the landlord completed the damp-proof course treatment. It therefore did not fully resolve the rising damp.
Turning to the flooring, the landlord accepted that it would replace this after completing the main damp works. It completed those works in December 2025. However, it did not then progress the agreed flooring replacement. The resident continued to seek updates about the flooring in March and May 2026. The landlord later accepted that it had failed to monitor this action. Its procedure required it to monitor repairs and keep residents informed until completion. It did not do so. This was a failing.
During its stage 2 investigation, the landlord reviewed the outstanding flooring and contacted the relevant teams. It replaced the flooring on 4 June 2026. This resolved the repair itself. However, the resident had experienced avoidable time and trouble while pursuing the agreed work.
When a landlord identifies failings, we consider whether its redress put things right. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed it to make discretionary payments. We have considered the amount offered against the duration and impact of its failures.
In its complaint handling the landlord offered total compensation of £360. This sum covered the impact on the resident of its poor communication and the delay in completing repairs. Its policy allows for discretionary compensation. We have considered this aspect when assessing the compensation offered by the landlord at the end of its complaints process.
There were significant delays in resolving the damp and mould and flooring issues. The resident’s vulnerabilities meant that the prolonged uncertainty and need for repeated contact had a greater impact on him compared to other residents in the same position without his vulnerabilities. We found that the compensation offered by the landlord in its final complaint response does not appropriately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay a total compensation of £600. This includes an additional sum of £240 to reflect this increased impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it should acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 December 2025. We have not identified evidence that it failed to comply with its stage 1 complaint timescales.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged shortcomings in its record keeping relating to an earlier complaint that had been raised while the resident was receiving support services. It accepted that it could not establish when that complaint had been received or acknowledged because of incomplete records. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping fell below the standard we would expect. It appropriately acknowledged this failing and offered £35 compensation.
The most significant complaint handling failures occurred following the stage 1 response. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 30 April 2026. The landlord later accepted that it failed to action this request. As a result, the resident had to make further contact before the complaint was progressed.
The landlord also reviewed several calls made by the resident to its customer service centre. It found that advisers failed to properly address his requests, incorrectly advised him that he could not raise a complaint until a damp and mould inspection had been completed and failed to action complaint requests when asked. The landlord accepted that these failings resulted in the resident experiencing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord offered £185 for its complaint handling failures. This comprised £35 at stage 1 and two payments of £75 at stage 2.
In considering its remedy, the landlord acknowledged these failures and apologised. It also identified learning and gave feedback to the relevant staff. These actions addressed why the failures occurred and reduced the risk of them happening again.
We have considered the £185 payment against the extent and impact of the failures. Although the resident experienced avoidable inconvenience, the landlord ultimately progressed his complaint and investigated what had gone wrong. It also took action to put matters right. We consider £185 proportionate under its compensation policy for the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Learning

The case highlights the importance of acting on surveyor recommendations and ensuring identified damp and mould repairs are progressed to completion. Failure to do so can result in residents experiencing avoidable delays and having to report the same issue more than once.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

This case highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records of damp and mould investigations, repair decisions and follow-on actions.
In this case, the landlord’s records showed that further works were required following its June 2024 inspection. However, it was unable to demonstrate that those works were subsequently raised or monitored. Accurate record keeping helps landlords track outstanding actions, demonstrate compliance with policy requirements and effectively investigate complaints.

Communication

This case highlights the importance of maintaining regular communication with residents and providing clear updates on outstanding repairs. While the landlord ultimately completed the damp and mould works and replaced the kitchen flooring, the resident spent considerable time seeking updates and clarification regarding the status of the repairs. Regular communication and effective oversight can help manage expectations and reduce the need for residents to repeatedly chase progress.